The School Address is an Outrage: Here’s Why

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obamaâ€™s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obamaâ€™s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The Presidentâ€™s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the “executive Power.” They include being “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the Presidentâ€™s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

The President is a political leader. He is not in office to be an educator. His duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include educating children. By the same token, the President is not the parent of all these children. He is not their teacher. He is not their religious leader. The reason for these boundaries is so that political figures do not use their power and influence to dominate our social lives.

It is a special danger to liberty and society when national powers are developed. These are powers in which the national leadership directly controls or influences individual citizens, while bypassing or circumventing other local sources of governance and influence such as parents, families, churches, schools, and local governments.

An Obama address to schoolchildren is an instance of the further development of national power and influence. It breaks new ground in the influence of State over society. Public education already is under the influence of objectionable forces, but this establishes a new precedent that can be extended. If one political leader addresses youth, other leaders are more likely to address youth. The content of their speeches can be enlarged. Their influence can be enlarged. Government will be given more play and support than it already has. Such a speech is inescapably political. Such a precedent can eventually lead to further dangerous developments, such as a Presidential Youth or an Obama Youth.

The President is a politician. Any address he might make, no matter how nonpartisan it may seem, is bound to be political. It cannot be neutral. The very fact that he is President and making such a speech will be taken in by school children. He will be conveying his authority to these children, with the blessings of their parents and school teachers. They will be taught by the speech itself, regardless of its content, to look to the national government in matters relating to their lives. After all, is he not addressing them about very personal and civic matters? His speech is necessarily a political act.

The President is the leader of a particular political party, so that the very fact that he is a Democrat who is President and making such a speech influences his listeners. Children grow up to be voting adults.

In any speech, what the President says lies beyond the control of those who allow that speech to enter the classroom. The teachers have control over the subsequent discussion, if they choose to have it. But the President will already have made his impact. Children do not fully possess the capacities to judge political matters.

Will the opposition party demand equal time? Do we want politicians routinely competing with one another for the attention of and influence over children?

The President commands the airwaves. This is a dangerous and influential power when used with adults. Allowing this power to be extended to communication with every child in the country is even more dangerous.

School districts can opt out of the speech. In some districts, children may be allowed to opt out of the speech. These options are good ones. But they do not alter the reasons outlined above for objecting to a president making speeches in schools.

Iâ€™d like to add that I have seldom read stronger words in newspapers directed against those who object to Obamaâ€™s speechmaking to children. They are being called crackpots. They are being accused of demonizing the President. They are being accused of McCarthyism. They are being accused of being racist, completely insane, and members of the right-wing lunatic fringe.

These attacks are not called for. There are very good reasons to object to Obamaâ€™s speech. Iâ€™ll sum up the ones that bother me. There are no doubt others, but I have made no attempt to research them and find out what others are thinking on this matter.

The speech is beyond the Presidentâ€™s constitutional powers.

The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.

The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.

The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.

The President is augmenting national power and influence.

The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.

The Presidentâ€™s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.

The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.

The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.

Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?

Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

While I generally agree with the content of the article I fail to see how Obama is setting a precedent. According to the reports I have seen this was done by Reagan and G HW Bush, I didn’t hear whether G W Bush and Clinton had done one. We must not let ourselves become the hypocrites that we criticize so much on the other side.

In 1937, on the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution for the United States in the Federal Convention of 1787, the federal government published a book by Sol Bloom entitled: â€œThe Story of the Constitution.â€ The question concerning the federal governmentâ€™s constitutional authority over education was asked and answered on page 171:

â€œQ. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?

A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.â€

Since the Constitution has not been amended to grant the federal government any power over education, the answer to the above question still stands. The federal government, by its own admission, possesses absolutely no constitutional authority over education but that has not stopped Congress from unconstitutionally taxing the American people to fund education within the 50 United States.

When Congress enacts laws concerning education, they are simply terms and conditions for accepting the funding because the federal government has no legislative authority over education. In other words, Congress is perverting its taxing power to acquire a level of legislative power denied to the federal government by the Constitution.

The quote from this 1937 book proves the author of this article is right on the money with his comments.

The hypocracy of electing a “leader” Just so we can be suspicious of him.

We hold certain beliefs.
we join in supporting a political party that closely follows our beliefs.
we elect leaders who come from this party.
we become disenfranchised with leaders.
we continue to vote them back into office, over and over.

It is a question of TRUST. Do I trust Obama to do the right thing = no,
Would I trust Palin to do the right thing = yes. I never met either but one I trust the other I don’t.
I can live with this “school speach” so long it is NOT mandatory and coupled with “equal time response”.
But I marvel at this display of egotism…

It is not so much the Usurper Potus and Totus saying “HI” to the kids, it is for me the absolute arrogance of the lesson plans that accompanied the first version of the Hail,Obama greeting. The first account I saw used the word “required” in the header and present a Bill Ayers’ lesson plan and assignments. THAT was largely ignored as a reason to cry FOUL. Of course it vanished from the website, but did not vanish from the classrooms, as I would almost bet money that school systems and teachers’ unions sent hard copies and dvds to accompany and underscore that there were some stone tablets yet to arrive.
So that is what raised my ire. I taught in Texas public schools for 41 years. Texas is a Right to Work state and the NEA did not win here.

Yes, Casey, this is an incredible display of egotism . . . exactly what should be expected of a narcissist! The kind of childhood and repeatedly-broken home he came from produces large scars on one’s personality, that will remain permanently and affect everything he does. Sooner or later, America will see this!

The United States Constitution was purposely constructed to prevent federal politicians from becoming successful villains against this republic.
I see no will of any minority, or any majority, as having this right, nor this authority, by any means, to misconstrue this Constitution, as if this were otherwise.

I read the text of the address to “America’s children” last evening. I was struck by the tone—and it IS a familiar one. All “BHO” with many statements like, “Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.” Hunh? If a kid gives up, he fails himself first. And there is a whole succession of people who will be negatively affected by his “giving up” LONG before “the country” gets to share the problem. I truly believe that Obama is determined to establish in the minds of children that nothing exists between “them” and the collective “country”! His comments about parents, et al are just pandering. BO will motivate them by telling them they have a much greater responsibility than to themselves, their families, their neighbors, friends, and their Creator? Why not tell them that they are charged with being Atlas and it is their responsibility to carry “their country”? After all, to BO striving for one’s own sake is just plain selfish. I noticed he said nothing of the capitalist side of success. All comments about succeeding were couched in “others” benefiting from their hard work! He will lie to these kids and mislead them about the proper role of gubmint in education because he could care less about that which he is sworn to uphold. His ignorance is blinding. Hopefully American parents will see through this tripe. I couldn’t help but note the “I-was-a-victim” comment about not being able to go to school with “the American kids.” Why BO? Are you not an American as many have suggested? In closing, the children OF America aren’t anyone’s kids but their parents; they are not “our future” either. The adults of today will hand over partial responsibility to those who come of age in the following generations. We will share our future. I only hope that the future we are creating for them to share in is one worth living in and for. Bottom line: BO is not the Father in Chief just because he is CIC!

I read the speech and watched it beside my children who I kept home from school today, I was struck by the undertones in parts of the speech that incouraged students to idolize the pres. and first lady. as well as how he side steped anyone elses responsibility for improving classrooms saying”I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, and equipment and computers you need to learn.” I was also watching the online disscusion in which one mother reported my six year old son said “He loves us and does not want anything bad for us.” How scary is it that he has now convinced other children of that same thing

I am an observer, here, and I am observing a curious phenomenon. Where were the protests, the vitriol, the hate, when Reagan, GHW Bush addressed schools. What about when George W. Bush was sitting in a classroom visiting students face to face. (Remember 9-11-01? Thousands of people are dead, and he’s sitting there, taking his sweet time to respond to a national tragedy) Where was the Tenth Amendment center through all those presidents doing the same things that they are objecting to Obama doing?

If I purjur myself when I take an oath in a court room, I am charged with a crime and appropriate penalties are issued, be they fines and or time in jail.
Nobama took an oath before “We the People” and the world and yet, has he Preserved, Protected of Defended our Republic’s Constitution? Why do we let this man stay in office? He makes both White and Black people ( let us remember that he is neither black or white) look like a tv stereo typed criminal that can get away with “murder” and he wants to inspire our children to be like him and stay in school?
Nobama is wrong for this country AND our children!

I agree with you for the most part. However, what about the argument that we form a democracy with a capital “D”? If we are going to elevate Democracy to something that is greater than Reagan’s definition, in which democracy was characterized as the outcome of mere market forces, then it is possible to have certain actions and functions of the Presidency transcending party politics and the situational conflicts that they embody. This conception goes hand in hand with the notion of Statesmen in a Democratic polity. Was the plan devised by Pericles intended to promote the interests of a political faction in Athens or was it intended to promote the good of the commonwealth? I sense with your Austrian economics that you will reject my argument based upon the fact that it rests upon the existence of altruism, but it does not. The promotion of the commonwealth is in every citizen’s interests and, therefore, it was in the interests of Pericles and his progeny.

I disagree with your premise. We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. As for Pericles, I assume when you say “plan” you are referring to his passion for the arts which led to Athens’ cultural and educational greatness. His form of government worked for a time in ancient Greece, however, we are not an Athenian Democracy. We have layers of government that provide checks and balances and elected representatives to do so. These layers were a very intentional part of the framers’ plan for our country. If a president wants to encourage education and the arts then he or she should do so by giving the states an incentive to encourage education and the arts. The states can then compete and we will then be free to choose which one we want to live in.

I feel I need to chime in here. I have been a public elementary school teacher for 14 years. The Obama speech was not even mentioned today at my school.
Contrary to popular myth, many teachers lean towards the conservative side on many issues. However, as a group, we do not believe the rights favorite means of education reform-vouchers-has any chance of success. That is why many turn to the NEA/Democrats as protectors. The NEA is fiery liberal and does not represent the opinions of many teachers it claims to represent. They promote political issues unrelated to education that they should stay out of.

“our public school system is one of the most destructive forces in our country”

What is your basis for this wild accusation? I have not known a single teach who pushed ideological views on kids. We are professionals. I have to be careful when talking about the “Civil War” since all we get in the text books is the PC sanitized version of the evil south being reformed of its nasty ways by the great and tolerant north!
Maybe you should back up why you think public schools are one of THE most destructive forces in our country?

I find the spelling errors in many of these responses highly amusing; it seems to me that several of you should be focusing more on your own education. Concerning the speech, no one was forced to watch it. This article even acknowledged the fact that children could have opted out of watching the speech in class. I also find the claim that its aim was to subliminally foster support for the Democratic party utterly ludicrous. It was not partisan in any way; it was a speech designed to encourage students to apply themselves in school so that they can ensure a better future for themselves and this country. The kindergarteners who listened won’t be able to reelect him in 2012, so calm down Republicans. This could be an influential message, to be sure, but what is wrong with that? I am a senior in high school, and I appreciated hearing it. Most of the news concerning today’s youth is negative; we are constantly reminded that our generation is characterized by an unprecedented level of political apathy, irresponsibility, and incompetence where deprived of modern technology. Getting some positive feedback is nice once in a while, especially when parents across the country are reinforcing negative stereotypes about their children. Contrary to what you may believe, your children are competent enough to formulate their own opinions. If a 20-minute speech is enough to brainwash them into accepting whatever political connotations you believe this speech contains, they need some backbone.

By the way, if anyone is interested, I consider myself a conservative.

You said, “I also find the claim that its aim was to subliminally foster support for the Democratic party utterly ludicrous.”

Brooke, if any one thing can be pointed out as a lack in education, it is this: People are taught to read but they do not comprehend what they have read. They do not focus on the words used and the context of those words in statements. Spelling, although I abhor errors, DOES NOT constitute a valid reason for ignoring the argument. For example, my earlier post had nothing whatsoever to do with political party affiliation(nor did Obama’s speech); it was quite specific in pointing out the line that has blurred between parent and child. You must agree that “giving up” on yourself cannot, in any way, be considered as giving up on your country! That is a huge leap. Remember that kids from K-12 listened to this speech; most do not have the obvious maturity that you do! I believe that you have yet to face a situation where you just “throw in the towel”. Although I would not recommend that one do that, sometimes it is the only way someone will learn that they need to head in a different direction.

You also said, “It was not partisan in any way; it was a speech designed to encourage students to apply themselves in school so that they can ensure a better future for themselves and this country.”

I think that you may have been misled by the anger reflected in forums both here in the comments and throughout the country. The point that you cannot see (a part I’m glad and sad about) is that, at your age, you have yet to have lived long enough to experience the sublime. The message is quite simple if one actually READS the speeches given by anyone, especially Obama. His is simple: “The country depends on you.” No Brooke, it does not. This is a democratic Republic. In order for this country (and the People of it to survive) we must have two things: Self reliant people AND an intelligent electorate. Obama only spoke of success on the “global” level and ignored the opportunity to tell children that they can improve their personal livelihoods with effort that will pay off in the future for THEM.
He ignored the lack of constitutional authority he, or anyone else has, at the federal level to “provide” all that you need to learn (schools, books, teachers, etc.). When ANY President or person from the federal government tells you what “they” are doing for you, in an effort to assist you, they are intentionally and blatantly ignoring the Constitution. We have the most glorious system of government ever devised by man under the Constitution; unfortunately, from the outset it has been rarely conformed to. When you come to understand this, then you will have the two pieces required to keep this country great. Education in and of itself, especially one lacking in in-depth American History and Civics, is not the answer to success in life or the continuation of Liberty in the United States of America.

I commend you for reading the articles here and elsewhere that broaden your horizons and outlook. I certainly hope that you will order your free copy of the Constitution from Hillsdale College; it has a comprehensive list of reading materials in the back that will leave you with an abundance of knowledge that one usually will not find in any high school civics class. You sound like me many years ago however, I wasted a lot of time by not exploring and teaching myself. Have fun kiddo— really, the world is your oyster; just don’t get eaten or stuck on the beach!

Hate? What hate? Objecting to something that Hussein Obama does as POTUS is not the same thing as “hate” Diane. But I get it, “hate” is one of those leftist charges leftists throw out at non-leftists that is supposed to disarm us. Sorry, that tactic has been used so much by the left that people are becoming immune to it. You see, that’s what happens, Diane, you can only make a given false charge so often before people begin to become numb to it. But had you called us all ‘racist’ for our opposition to Obama’s statism, well now, that might have been more effective to your purposes. After all, the other presidents you name were all white guys, right.

Diane wrote:

What about when George W. Bush was sitting in a classroom visiting students face to face.

What about it? Is POTUS sitting in a class room visiting and addressing third grade students face-to-face the same thing as purposely and pointedly addressing the nation’s schoolchildren to your mind? In point of fact, Diane, the great likelihood is that no one but the students, factulty, and the parents involved would have known anything about that had it not been for the events of 9/11 which brought attention to it. Did George W. or anyone in his administration advertise the event to the nation?

You wrote parenthetically:

(Remember 9-11-01? Thousands of people are dead, and heâ€™s sitting there, taking his sweet time to respond to a national tragedy)

Actually, it was an attack on our country by jihadist Muslims, not a ‘national tragedy,’ leftist sentimentalism notwithstanding. Second, by “sitting there taking his sweet time” what exactly do you mean and what exactly is the basis of your objection? Bush, in your opinion, should have done what, and according to what specific time frame? Need I remind you, Diane, that he didn’t know what exactly was happening at the time he first received word that WTC had been hit.

But allow me to let you in on a couple of dirty little secrets here Diane. First of all, Hussein Obama is a radical leftist who seeks to impose a radical leftist agenda on the entire nation. If you can’t see the difference between a radical leftist hell-bent on imposing radical leftist policies on the entire nation, and three right-liberals/neo-conservatives of various orders taking an intensely more moderate approach to the office of the presidency, then you’re a self-deluded fool. Second, if Hussein isn’t an actual foreigner by birth, he’s the closest one can get without actually being one. On the little matter of his citizenship alone, which is by no means a settled question, and of his imbibing principles not congenial with Republicanism during his formidable years while being educated in a foreign country under a foreign system of education which bears a great deal of hostility towards the United States, there is a stark contrast between Hussein Obama and the other Presidents you named in your post.

I am pointing at you and saying, “Yeah, what he said!” Well said Terry! I am sick to death of being called a racist or one who hates. I hate ideas but I have never hated a person. I don’t have a racist bone in my body either. I may be a sexist in some ways as I CANNOT stand women who add “feelings” to any political argument, especially those devoid of common logic and well known fact.

1. Why Obama attended a very expensive private school in Hawaii,
2. Why he now spends $60,000 annually for his two children to attend private school, but does not support school choice initiatives for students stuck in government institutions?

The main reason is that public schools are state institutions and under the Constitution not subject to federal control. The President has no legal power to mandate giving a speech on something outside of his scope of authority. The states could invite him to give a speech to their school children, but that is not what happened. People are first and foremost citizens of their sovereign states. That qualifies them to be recognized as U.S. citizens and beneficial of the protections guaranteed under the federal Constitution.